|
Kan het nog ergens met cash, eigenlijk? Localbitcoins in onze streken werkt alleen nog met overschrijvingen e.d.m.
|
|
|
|
As I've said in OP, I was especially eager to hear how the LP is perceived in the US. How do they campaign? How are their supporters? In which states are they (the most) active? Are they visible? Maybe it's still too early in the campaign? Etc. If, like me, you're not an American, your perception is limited to what you can find or read online or watch on Youtube, and so on. Although interesting, it was never my intention to start just another discussion about general politics, libertarianism or the two-party system. A lot has been and will be written about these topics, in the past and in the future, on these boards, and elsewhere, so allow me to propose to keep the current thread strictly on-topic  |
|
|
|
Last post one year ago. Looks like the Merit hype finally cooled down a little bit. Let's celebrate this anniversary by reawakening this thread, which was a textbook example of altruism. Thread about a recent Cryptopia bankruptcy judgment, which was imho groundbreaking (I mean the judgment, not the thread  ): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5251040Maybe even more important than the OP, is the extensive post I added, after having read some of the replies. It took me several days to refine. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5251040.msg54503106#msg54503106Sadly, I am not a programmer or a whizz kid, and too old to ever be able to profoundly understand everything about creating and obtaining crypto (meaning the only way I could obtain crypto is by buying some or by campaigning), but I do have my legal experience and a portion of ideological insight and hope these threads can count as my very modest contributions to this wonderful community. Cheers QA. |
|
|
|
libertarians want private tyrany.
Have a cookie. In the US the LP is just a tool used in lame attempts to split the vote of the opposition.
Not really possible for a 3rd party to rise in the US due to the nature of US elections. Pretty much all elections in the US work as follows: If you win even one more vote then the other candidate, you win and they get nothing (for Presidential elections this one vote would be in the EC instead of pop vote like for everything else.
if we had a different system of voting, yes this would be pretty different. A different system could be something along the lines of proportional representation and multi member districts. If you win a certain amount of the votes in a particular area, you'll get a certain number of the allocated represenatatives.
It is indeed not easy at all, except for when you have an extremely well organized party, but without radio and TV chains, I can imagine it's hard to get a foot on the ground in US politics. In the UK, the classical 2 party system has been turned over however, so it is not impossible though (although indeed, their voting system is still different from the US's). |
|
|
|
Oh yeah let's all vote Republican or Democrat again. I'm 100% sure that this time, they will change the country. Jokes aside, are any American fellow forum members considering a vote for Libertarian Party nominee Jo Jorgensen? If so, could you elaborate a bit? You might know I'm passionated by the ideology, but having a real organized libertarian party is something we Europeans can only dream about, and I'm quite curious to hear how the LP campaigns are being run IRL and what people who cast their votes for the LP act and think (politically) IRL. www.joj2020.com |
|
|
|
|
Freedom. The only thing we all desire.
|
|
|
|
|
I concur. En "enkele euro's" is extreem optimistisch. Je verdient amper iets met een faucet, en referrals zijn dan nog maar een percentage daarvan.
Ik wou een paar tips geven, maar al bij al is het toch maar de bedoeling van deze post dat we gaan kijken, in de hoop dat we ergens aan deelnemen, dus foert.
|
|
|
|
|
Ik hoop dat het Nederlands op je website beter is dan hier.
In elk geval zou ik er niet aan beginnen. Er gaat veel tijd in en meer dan een paar centen of enkele shitcoins ga je er niet aan over houden.
De hype is al een tijdje geleden neergedwaald. Je zult het zelf snel merken.
|
|
|
|
|
Ha, dat klopt uiteraard, maar 2,5mio jobs erbij ipv 7,5mio minder, zou ik toch niet als "ietsjes" beschrijven, of je nu Trump-lover of -hater bent. Qua werkgelegenheid zijn de VS geen uitzondering op de regel. Ik weet niet of je Nederlander bent of Vlaming, sbogovac, maar in procenten uitgedrukt, moeten we in België alvast niet naar anderen wijzen. Zelfs zonder corona doen we het nog steeds slechter dan de VS met corona.
Maar bon, het punt is in elk geval dat er volgens mij dus geen volatiliteit zit aan te komen, althans niet omwille van de "actuele toestand" in de VS.
|
|
|
|
Hai Darkstar_, it looks like the campaign status has changed from open slot to full. Have you found a new participant after the last 2 people or have decided to cancel the acceptance of the third participant afterwards ? I dont see a new name in Spreadsheet. For now, there will not be a third participant accepted. Thx for the update. Do I have to re-add my application when new slots are available? Our can I just leave the application I posted a few days ago? Thx again. |
|
|
|
Mei update
Thx mooie analyses, zoals elke maand, maar toch wel wat nuance nodig vind ik. Er lijkt in de laatste maanden toch een soort van  -gevoel (om het met een smiley te zeggen) in de geesten te zijn geslopen, wanneer de kranten hun dagelijkse paniekzaaierij publiceren. Een "we've heard it all before and then life goes on"-gevoel, waarbij de beurzen amper nog reageren op zogezegd slecht nieuws - ofwel heel kortstondig - en zich snel herstellen. Een goede zaak, want meestal klopt dat buikgevoel ook. Ik wil er toch even op wijzen dat we met blik op het verleden bijvoorbeeld kunnen stellen dat de Tea Party Protests van 2009 (waarbij niets in brand werd gestoken en nergens werd geplunderd) veel betekenisvoller zijn geweest dan de huidige. Iedereen weet toch wel dat de huidige betogingen niet gaan over die feiten in Minneapolis (sinds jaar en dag Democratisch) in de staat Minnesota (sinds jaar en dag - inderdaad - Democratisch), maar dat deze arme man die het leven moest laten bij politiegeweld, gewoon als excuus wordt gebruikt om tegen Trump te betogen. Tragisch vind ik dat - en ware het niet dat ik tegenwoordig zeer gelaten ben, zou ik zulk hypocriet gedrag "zum Kotzen" noemen. En dan de tien miljoen werklozen die er tijdens corona in de VS zouden bijkomen: die blijken integendeel 2,5 miljoen extra jobs te zijn, ook al namen de overheidsjobs en het overheidsbeslag (opnieuw) af. Trump heeft zijn vaste kiezerskorps, en met dit soort resultaten (De Tijd noemde ze eergisteren letterlijk "Verbluffend") zwelt die groep zeker en vast nog aan. Niet dat ik Trump hoeft te verdedigen, maar hij staat toch vrij prominent in beeld als actueel symbool voor de VS. Ik stel alleen maar vast dat al dat lawaai in bepaalde pers (CNN, NYT en zo goed als elke grote West-Europese krant  ) al lang niet meer gehoord wordt. "Katalysatoren" worden niet meer door de pers gecreëerd, maar door de overgrote (stille) meerderheid die er het hare van denkt. Om kort te gaan: tenzij er onverwachte economische feiten komen, komt er volgens mij geen volatiliteit in de markten - althans niet door de betogingen. In die zin zullen de komende gevolgen van de draconische corona-maatregelen in West-Europa veel belangrijker zijn dan die aanstellerij in de VS. Misschien wordt het eens tijd voor een politieke thread in de Nederlandstalige boards.  We hebben bovendien ook in eigen land voldoende politici van divers pluimage (zowel in VL als NL) dus er valt wel wat te debatteren... |
|
|
|
Aangezien ik niet graag nieuwe topics open om de hoeveelheid threads overzichtelijk te houden, hier een interessante analyse van BTCDirect. https://nieuws.btcdirect.eu/kans-altseason/Kort gezegd: BTC-winst wordt gespreid over middelgrote altcoins. Interessant, en ik kan in grote mate volgen omdat er "middelgrote" staat vermeld. De tijd van de kleine altcoins lijkt me daarentegen toch wel definitief voorbij. |
|
|
|
|
Kijk es aan, deze thread is zopas 2 jaar oud geworden. Ik heb toch al lekker veel Merits aan taalgenoten kunnen uitdelen, en ik heb de indruk dat de andere Nederlandstaligen zich ook niet hebben ingehouden. Top!
Aangezien het al even stil was, veroorloof ik mij dit draadje eventjes weer te bumpen. Geen idee of er veel nieuwe Nederlandstalige members zijn bijgekomen, maar wie vindt dat hij wat Merit verdiend heeft, mag gerust replyen. Voorwaarden staan in OP.
|
|
|
|
Damn echt tof, en bedankt voor de info. Ik merk dat Nederland op cryptovlak mijlenver voorop staat - ik heb daar mijn ideeën over, maar dat zou ons te veel in communautaire wateren brengen, en daarvoor bestaan al genoeg andere fora Dus heel interessant te horen dat er toch wel behoorlijke interesse bestaat. Sinds de hype van een jaar of twee geleden, wordt crypto bij ons weer een beetje doodgezwegen (hoewel we intussen toch alweer rond de 10.000 dollar zweven). |
|
|
|
Oh don't take it all that personal, mate. They have the right to speak. You have the right to not listen. |
|
|
|
Again: this is huge.
no it isn't any statutory precedent is meaningless if it cannot be enforced (and hence such things are in no way any kind of law at all). take the Mt Gox case, the Japanese law firm who are handling that case simply cannot hope to refund all of the 650,000 BTC that was stolen/embezzled. even if situations like this resulted in deposit insurance requirements, no insurance company could even dream of underwriting such a liability, the risk is simply too high. Knowing Bitcoin private keys and in turn the blockchain enforcing their ownership are a law unto themselves, far more powerful than any judicial or statutory pronouncements. that was Satoshi's clear intention from the very start I'm not quite sure I can follow. any statutory precedent is meaningless if it cannot be enforced How does this differ from non-crypto? In the case of Cryptopia, it will be enforced by the liquidators. So in your opinion, when it comes to Cryptopia, it is not meaningless? At least not for the part that wasn't hacked and stolen, thus enforced?? (and hence such things are in no way any kind of law at all) Judgments are not laws. I don't see the relevance of this remark, because indeed, they are in no way law. So what's your point? no insurance company could even dream of underwriting such a liability, the risk is simply too high Sure they could. And they do, as DaveF already pointed out. Knowing Bitcoin private keys and in turn the blockchain enforcing their ownership are a law unto themselves With all due respect. Everything you're saying sounds absolutely great... But what does it even mean? It's a genius concept alright. But "A law unto themselves"? Jeez. Why would it? It's not that I must absolutely disagree with you and I wouldn't dream of wanting to insult you, but this a meaningless slogan. I'd really like to hear you elaborate on this. that was Satoshi's clear intention from the very start One of the clear intentions was to get rid of banks, governments and corporations. I discovered BTC through my interest in consitutional law and libertarianism - not through my interest in becoming rich. Property is the very foundation of libertarianism and in my vision of libertarianism, it's the only right that should exist, as it covers all rights, freedom and liberty. This judgment not only doesn't deny this, but on the contrary confirms it. In no way Satoshi (or any libertarian) would oppose to this ruling. |
|
|
|
|
Had iemand anders hier al over gehoord? Of over de Starter Box? Project uit Nederland?
Leuk project hoor!
Hopelijk vind je me niet indiscreet, maar kun je ons een schatting geven van het succes van de Starter Box, of een indicatie, om ons een idee te geven over in welke mate de interesse leeft bij de "Beginner"? Als je te lang op deze boards ronddwaalt, vergeet je wel eens dat er veel mensen zijn die amper noties van crypto hebben... *nerd*
Thx en succes!
|
|
|
|
Thanks for fleshing it out.
What happens next?
1. Well, as a quite important side note, let me use just one other example to specify the importance. If you leave the keys of your car in someone else's hands, there is a risk that your car gets stolen. We all agree that - depending on the circumstances - it is probably not the smartest thing to do. And we all agree that, if and when it gets stolen, there is a chance you'll never see your car back. However, that doesn't mean it's not your property anymore. This concept of property guarantees that, if your car is found, it will be returned to you. If it is damaged, you could receive a compensation. If it has disappeared, but the thief is found, you could receive a compensation. Etc. Also, the thief could get punished, of course, but - again - punishment is irrelevant in the context of this judgment, as we are talking about property rights. (In the case of bankruptcy, this means that, for instance, if your car is being serviced or towed and the service or towing company goes bankrupt while your car is still there, the liquidator has to return it to you as soon as you've paid the invoice) In the context of cryptocurrencies, of course it's exactly the same, meaning you shouldn't trust anyone blindly. 'Not your keys, not your coins' is a very clear warning, which should make any user of an exchange think twice before transferring his coins. But of course, this also goes for any owner of a car (or any good whatsoever) who trusts his keys in someone else's hands - especially a stranger's. So of course, there is never a guarantee that, in a case of hacking or theft etc., you will get your coins back, because, well, quite simply, they have to be found first. Just like there is never a guarantee that you will get your car back. You can't get your good back as long as it isn't found. But there is a guarantee that it remains your property, and that your rightful claims remain reserved, should the good and/or those responsible be found. 2. In a way, this probably sounds all very logical and even self-evident, but it's not. Contrary to what @palle11 claimed above, there still is a lot of uncertainty and "grey zones" in the legal context of crypto. Some countries allow trade and some don't. Some allow exchanges and some don't. Some allow ICOs and some don't. Some recognize crypto formally as property (as NZ did with this judgment), some don't, and some do, but have not expressed this formally (yet), e.g. in laws or in judgments. It is an important discussion, since, as in the car analogy, if crypto is not recognized as property, you haven't got any claim or rights at all. If they're never found back, it won't change a lot in the facts, but if they are, it changes everything. 3. Now, finally back to your question, @Last of the V8s. No-one knows what happens next, since, as I said before, crypto is too new of a concept from many points of view, and particularly from a legal point of view. To my knowledge, this is one of the few/first judgments who treats the subject of cryptocurrency so extensively. This judgment does however open quite a lot of other relevant questions: - what about the coins that were left on the CoinExchange balances, when CoinExchange closed down a few months ago? These coins were "lost". In the context of this judgment, CoinExchange has "lost" other people's property. I'm not a judge, so I leave it up to you to draw your own conclusions. - idem dito for Nauticus. If I'm not mistaken, Nauticus as well as CoinExchange were based in Australia, so this NZ judgment could be relevant as both legal systems have a lot of mutual influence. However, as far as I know, Australian authorities have not seemed to care a lot about the Nauticus adventures (yet). - if crypto is fully recognized as property, property tax laws - if any - might be applied. In a way, governments will therefore have an interest in recognizing crypto as property. I think this deserves a topic on its own however (of which there are already A LOT on these boards), so allow me to insist to not discuss tax laws in this thread. - if it is fully recognized as property, trading crypto is allowed under the same conditions as trading other goods. Etc. 4. Lastly, and again, all this does not mean you should trust anyone blindly. Although "Not your keys, not your coins", is not a legally correct statement - which was the actual subject of this thread - it is however a perfect and easy to remember way of warning people to keep their eyes peeled. Think about the car: even though it remains your property, would you trust a stranger with your car keys? However, I have already made this thread, as well as this very extensive thread two years ago, warning people about the shadiness of many exchanges, some of which have indeed disappeared in the meantime, much to my expectations and predictions.
I hope this makes things clearer and that the car analogy helps to further clear things out. I've been editing some things, trying to make them more understandable. I'm really out of inspiration now.  I'm convinced that quite a few interesting discussions and even some careful predictions could come out of this. Years of legal practice may have made some things more evident to me than to others and I apologize should I sound pompous in any way - I've really tried not to. Let us know if you do not agree with my point of view - or rather with the judgment's point of view, but please also do add why, for the sake of discussion. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
